John S., List: I agree that when Peirce wrote in 1904 that "a sign is not a real thing. It is of such a nature as to exist in *replicas*," he was pointing toward what he later called a Type and its Tokens, respectively. This is the basis for my interpretative hypothesis that every Sign is a Type, its Instances are Tokens, and their significant characters are Tones.
I believe that Lady Welby's reply to Peirce's letter of December 23, 1908 asking her about Tone vs. Mark was the one dated January 21, 1909 (SS 86ff). Consequently, it came several weeks *after* he wrote the other drafts of that letter over the next several days, so his use of Mark in those is not necessarily indicative of "his final decision." In any case, I continue to prefer Tone as more "qualitative" than "existential." Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 4:22 PM, John F Sowa <[email protected]> wrote: > On 8/13/2018 1:45 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt wrote: > >> JFS: I believe that the subject line blurs too many issues. >>> >> It is a direct quote from Peirce (EP 2:303; 1904), and the >> point of the thread is to explicate it. >> > > Oh. I admit that the thread was so long (over 40 messages) > that I had forgotten how it started. > > I copied the two relevant excerpts in the attached EP2_303.jpg > (from 1904) and EP2_480.jpg (from 1908). In EP 2:303, he did > not use (or even think of) his more precise terminology of 1908. > > Between those two dates, Peirce (1906) began to talk about > real possibilities, and he published his tinctured EGs with > the three "universes" of possibility, actuality, and > the necessitated. > > His correspondence with Lady Welby, which started in 1903, gave > him an educated audience (Lady W and the Significs group) over > a sustained period of years. That audience was critical for > inspiring the development of his later terminology, in particular > the letters of December 1908 (EP 2:478-491). > > Note the last three sentences of EP2_480.jpg: > >> For a "possible" Sign I have no better designation than a _Tone_, >> thought I am considering replacing this by "Mark." Can you suggest >> a really good name? An Actual sign I call a _Token_; a Necessitant >> Sign a _Type_. >> > > If you interpret EP 2:303 in terms of EP 2:480, it seems clear > that he was talking about the type/token distinction before he had > chosen those words. When he said "a sign is not a real thing", he > was referring to the type, but he did not yet have the word "type". > In talking about a replica, he did not yet have the word "token". > > JAS > >> In fact, less than two weeks earlier, he had asked Lady Welby >> specifically about Tone vs. Mark (SS 83; 1908); and if I remember >> right--I do not have a copy of her reply--she found Tone preferable >> because a tone of voice is a paradigmatic example. Peirce also >> used Tone in what I think is one of his clearest passages about >> this division of Signs (CP 4.537; 1906). >> > > Note what he says in EP 2:480 (Dec 23). At the bottom of p. 488 > (Dec 24-28) he wrote the first triad as Mark/Token/Type, and he > continued to use the word 'Mark' on p. 489. That appears to be > his final decision. He considered Lady W's point, asked for > a "really good" term, and decided not to use 'Tone'. > > Also note his letter to William James on p. 502 (1909), where he > wrote "Deduction involves the observation of a Diagram (whether > Optical, Tactile, or Acoustic)" and then "I myself always work > with Optical Diagrams." That would suggest another reason why > he would prefer Mark to Tone. > > John >
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
